The battle over sexism and equality at the Garrick Club continues to rumble on. It was revealed yesterday that several of its members, including Stephen Fry, Sting, and Dire Straits frontman, Mark Knopfler, had put their name to a letter threatening to quit the Garrick unless members vote to admit women. They have been joined by luminaries from the world of theatre, film and television, who had been warned that they were in an untenable position because of a ‘very public controversy’ over the issue. The broadcaster John Simpson pronounced on X yesterday that he and many others ‘would also find it impossible to stay’ if the club didn’t open its doors to women.
This is the luvvie-spat that just won’t go away. It was sparked in March by the resignation from the all-male establishment by the head of the civil service, Simon Case, and the head of MI6, Richard Moore, after the Guardian revealed that they had joined a club that has repeatedly blocked the admission of women.
This has always been an insular, myopic squabble among the elites
This was followed later that month by an open letter by progressive-minded members of the institution, in which they nominated the women they would like to see become members. The letter proposed seven well-known women as prospective members of the Garrick, including the news presenter Cathy Newman, the former home secretary Amber Rudd and the classicist Mary Beard.
This week’s much-publicised letter has begged the obvious question: if these luvvies have found the institutional sexism of the historic club so offensive, why did they join it in the first place? To paraphrase Withnail and I, had they joined the Garrick by mistake? It would seem that they have hitherto been unconcerned by its its sexist policy, but have now realised that it could work to the detriment of their reputation and careers, now that it’s become such an awkward public concern.
At heart, this matter has never been about morality. It’s been about establishment figures looking out for themselves and their careers. We may have been subjected this week to the undignified spectacle of male actors and pop stars desperately trying to avoid the taint of sexism, but there was much cynicism right from the start.
A frequent complaint made of all-male clubs is that they are institutions where deals are made, hobnobbing is done, networks are forged. They are institutions for social advancement as much as cordiality and relaxation. At the end of March, as this squabble began to unfold, the Bar Council, the professional body for barristers, warned that exclusive members’ clubs created ‘the potential for unfair advantage’ for lawyers seeking to become judges. ‘Closed doors and exclusionary spaces do not foster support or collaboration between colleagues’, the organisation said.
Many women resent all-men’s clubs for this reason. There’s nothing high-status women and Hillary Clinton-type feminists resent more than their status not being recognised and given due deference. The idea that men can have their own spaces hasn’t washed with these rich, posh, powerful types.
And this has always been an insular, myopic squabble among the elites. This is nothing to do with the lives of ordinary women – or men. Even if its members currently believe themselves amid a ‘very public controversy’, which kind of people an inherently exclusive London club does or does not admit must be among the least pressing issues for the British public and its electorate.
This dispute has been less about equality or sexism and more about the elite of both sexes seeking to establish a level playing field within its own social stratum. It was no surprise that the whole affair was kicked off when the Guardian published a list of the club’s members, prompting the shamed-face resignation of Case and Moore. The Guardian is the newspaper for the upper-middle-classes, which is far more obsessed with sexism and how it affects that social stratum, and less so sexism as it might affect women in, say, Rochdale or Rotherham.
The likes of Fry, Sting, Knopfler and Simpson care for their public image not just for immediate, tangible reasons. They seem to be keen to openly flaunt their membership of the elite, and these male celebrities appear to have been doing that this week by very publicly proclaiming that they are members of the Garrick club (and you aren’t). Didn’t you get the message? They are members of the Garrick, that institution formed in 1831 for actors, theatre patrons and ‘men of refinement’.
And they deplore sexism, naturally.
Comments